[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Re: Minimal profile ?

From: Jason T. Greene <>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:41:49 -0500

I know what you are getting it, but I still want to stress that
Modularity != Plugability, although it is a helpful tool in achieving it.

The problem is that to integrate JSF fully and correctly in compliance
with the EE spec you have to use non-standard integration hooks. Even
with the RI (mojarra) those impl specific hooks have changed in a
non-compatible way between minor versions. So for a container provider
to support even multiple versions of one implementation, you have to
implement integration code for each one.

JPA did a good start with having an SPI (although it could be better,
let the container do the bytecode analysis vs the provider). I am all
for adding plugability SPIs, but the minimal profile is a no-go for me.
Really all a minmal profile is, is just the serlet spec, and vendors can
still release standalone servlet containers if they want. Calling the
servlet spec a "Java EE Profile" wouldn't really change anything, other
than maybe confuse people.

On 6/29/12 4:46 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
> Antonio,
> Interesting idea. How big is the difference between what you propose and
> the Web Profile, e.g. the TomEE server meets?
> EE 7 could offer a limited set of Modularity, but when the decision was
> made to drop Modularity from the Java 7 Platform due to the
> complications and challenges, the OpenJDK team is facing up until this
> day, I was among the first to point out the negative impact this would
> have on EE to then Spec Lead Roberto, and others, particularly EC
> Members present.
> Further Modularity or additional profiles may only work if the
> foundation really became modular. We hope and trust that's going to be
> EE8 or any EE that can use Java (8) Modularity.
> Werner
> Am 29.06.2012 23:35 schrieb "Antonio Goncalves"
> < <>>:
> Hi all,
> Four years ago, when we were building Java EE 6, we had this idea of
> a minimal profile that Roberto blogged about
> (
> The idea was to standardise "Tomcat-like" application servers with a
> minimal profile containing Servlets and JSPs. So we would have had
> this "minimal" profile, the web profile and the full one. We mostly
> voted no on this minimal profile, and I was one of them.
> I've spent the week migrating a JSF 1.2 application running on
> Tomcat to JBoss 6 EAP (which comes with JSF 2.0). Now I'm trying to
> run an application with JAX-RS 2.0 running on GlassFish 3.x (which
> comes with JAX-RS 1.1). On both cases, it's hell. This would be
> easier if I could have used a JBoss 6 EAP Minimal Profile (or a
> GlassFish 3.x Minimal Profile) and bundle my own external jars like
> I do with Tomcat. If we want applications to migrate to Java EE
> application servers, one ease of use would be to have just a servlet
> container. And it will give a nice migration plan to application :
> e.g. "migrate from Tomcat to JBoss Minimal profile, and then when
> you are used to your new application server, move to a Web Profile
> and start adding other Java EE modules".
> I think having a new "Minimal Profile" (a better name would be a
> "Servlet Profile" with just Servlets, EL and JSP) would increase
> modularity in application servers and help applications to migrate
> to Java EE.
> What would you think of introducing a new profile in Java EE 7 ?
> Antonio

Jason T. Greene
JBoss AS Lead / EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat